Why do you shoot medium format?

[Alan Gales]

Thank you for your reply, very informative. With ref. spot metering; this is the mode I use virtually all the time, though obviously with my camera's built in meter rather than a hand held one.
And ref. loading the film; I actually enjoy the process of loading 120 compared to 35mm, there's just something about it which I can't really put into words, but if anyone reading this feels the same they'll know exactly what I mean.

Hello Paul. You are welcome. I'm glad to help.

Since you are used to taking spot meter readings, you wouldn't have any problem with a hand held spot meter. It can get more complicated if you are using the Zone system to take meter readings and then developing sheet film separately but you don't have to do that. As I mentioned earlier, many use incident meters and some cell phones for large format. I'll keep my pair of Pentax digital spot meters which I use for 8x10, 6x6 and a 35mm Stereo Realist. I'm used to them!

Loading a 35mm camera can be faster than a medium format camera but I find loading medium format no big deal. The plus is that you don't have to rewind the film when you are done.

I always tell people not to be intimidated by gear. Gear is the easy part. Trying to make great images is when it really gets challenging!

Alan

 

[Jarrett]

I love my RZ67 and it can be scanned at home with my flatbed scanner. Not so much with 35mm.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

I primarily use and like 4x5. But, I also like medium format a lot. There are a number of reasons.

> I get nice results with MF. I typically don't print larger than 8x10 paper with MF; and the results can be excellent. I think that MF is a little more intimate.

> MF is both convenient and economical, compared to 4x5. Film' is less expensive per exposure, and it can be loaded outside a darkroom. Cameras are smaller. Lenses are smaller and less expensive as a rule. As a result of smaller cameras and lenses, the kit can be lighter weight. Bear in mind, some MF cameras and lenses can be pretty hefty. (e.g. Mamiya RB system)

>> One's more likely to be able to get MF color film developed locally, as opposed to color 4x5.

>> Enlargers don't take as much space. I have a medium format view camera and keep multiple backs handy for color or B&W, and I have multiple backs for different black and white development times. (I use the zone system.)

>> I absolute could not photograph hand-held with 4x5. But, my Mamiya Universal Press kit is ideal for this.

>> I think that it can take less time to make an image with MF, versus 4x5. (Depending on the camera that's being used.)

>> MF can be a better choice for vacations or traveling. Many LF photographers have had trouble getting their film through airport security. MF rolls are obviously film. (Versus 4x5 film in holders.) Since MF systems can be smaller, in particular, MF view cameras, it packs into a smaller space, is more amenable to carry on, etc.

I like the feel of 4x5. But in a different way, I can say the same for medium format.

 

[Eric Rose]

I have the choice of 35mm, MF and 4x5. I use them all but MF is my true love. For me cameras are simply tools to an end. I use the right tool for the job and don't try for a one solution fits all. However when I just want to get out and enjoy shooting I either grab my Rolleiflex or Blad depending on whether I need or desire multiple focal lengths. I love the square frame, it just works for me. Yes I can crop the other formats to square but I tend to compose in the viewfinder and print it the way I compose it. I love the way my Rollei handles and the rendering of the 3.5 Tessar lens. It's almost spiritual. Especially when I get the negs into the darkroom. Some good music on the darkroom stereo plus a wee bit of single malt scotch and I'm in heaven. I have a love hate relationship with my blad. I love the flexibility, the optics render things the way I like but the occasional jams tend to take me out of the creative headspace. That being said the blad has traveled all over the world with me and has always brought home the bacon.

I have a Rollei SLX with 80mm and 50mm lenses that is working it's way into my heart. We have been on a few dates so far, we'll see how it works out. Wish I had a 150mm for it.

 

[nyoung]

I shoot MF mostly to mess with the folks at Walmart. You get whazats? From the employee when you put a roll of Velvia in the envelope and more whazats? When it comes back and you unroll it on the counter. But seriously, for those who might not know, for chrome submitted through the Walmart send out service, Fuji returns it uncut, sleeved, and wound on a paper tube. 4x5 requires changing bags,mixing chemicals and other messy stuff so it has to be really important. That said, if I lived somewhere there was support for handling 4x5 - a local processor - I'd shoot much more of it.

 

[trondareo]

For years I didn't like shooting medium format, and 4x5 was way to much hassle. I would only take out 4x5 for a preplanned nature shot. As a project.
I tried a C33, an Agfa Clack, Bronica S2, a Yashica 124 and others. I loved the size of the negatives, They are a nice size to hold and you can see what's on them, easily. But I did not get along with 6x6 even though I love taking square format pictures on iPhone. I shot Leicas and Lomos and Nikons, but was always frustrated by the size of the 135 negative.
This summer I treated myself to a Mamiya 7, and everything fell into place. I took the 7 and the iPhone on a trip to Iceland and did not miss any other camera. Came back with a bag full of rolls. It is the medium format, middle of the road, not to big, not to small, easy handling. Nothing technical in the way of the shot. I can carry plenty of film, yet still slow down my shooting sufficiently to think. I can carry it around all day, because I notice that I need to have the camera in hand to see actively. If it is in a bag or over my shoulder I relax for much.
I started enlarging the summer prints yesterday. I love the details. I like enlarging to 30x40cm, for purely 8X10 enlargements I probably wouldn't see much difference to 135. But a bit larger and many 135 negatives fall through. With 6x7 I can still crop and retain quality.
I still carry around a Leica M4-2 as my daily beater. It lives in my daily bag with a 50mm and 90mm. The Mamiya is to large for that. I am dreaming of a nice Agfa Isolette, though....
As for 4x5 I have not given up on it. I have a Horseman with a pouch of 5 film holders. But I wonder when I will want to use it. The thing I think works with TLR´s and field cameras, is that they may be better for portraits because they break down a bit of the stigma of normal cameras. People are interested to sit in front of them and watch you working.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Why not just go all the way to 4x5? Is MF really that much of an improvement over 135? Just meant to be a discussion thread to gather your personal perspectives.

To me, it's the ideal compromise between quality and bulk of equipment.

 

[cb1]

Medium format, I have a Kodak No.2 autographic, Kodak Hawkeye and Mamiya RB67. I love 120 film and all the detail it captures.

 

[michr]

I use medium format for two reasons: because 35mm is dead, and cost.

 

[Michael Firstlight]

I love shooting medium format - 6x7 specifically, for many of the reasons already described. I don't want to carry more weight and bulk than that. Also, I just adore shooting my Pentax 67II; it looks, feels and handles like an oversized 35mm body, and is especially good to handle with its classic rosewood grip. The 6x7 is called the 'ideal' format - perfect for full frame 8x10, 11x14, 16x24, etc prints; I prefer to crop in camera most of the time and print full frame. With a great scanner, like a Nikon LS9000, I get incredible scans that don't have to be farmed out. It is even reasonable to process 120/220 roles of C41 at home, but there are local professional processors within a 10 minute drive and 48 hour or better turn-around if I don't want to be bothered at only $6USD for a 220 color C41. If I want to do some analog printing, I have a very nice 6x7 enlarger and dry-to-dry color print print processor. It's fun to do a little darkroom work on occasion, and people still marvel at hand-made prints. For digital printing I can print on my own Epson 7880 24-inch wide printer - the prints from a scanned 6x7 negative or positive are eye popping at 24x36 inches with deep black density form the high DMAX of the LS9000 along with smooth tonal gradations. Those scans have so much data that I get a great of mileage with Lightroom and Photoshop CC with the resulting scans. 35mm IQ just can't come remotely close with MF all things being equal - it never could. I've kept several of my classic 35mm cameras for nostalgia, including my wonderful Nikon F2as which is my favorite 35mm of the bunch. I do have a 6x6 Rollei TLR, and two complete RB67 systems with a 645 and 6x7 backs (The RBs are beasts and virtual work out/weight lifting machines), but nothing comes close to the feel and handling of shooting the Pentax 67II.

Mike

 

[aferrarini]

In my experience there is a dramatic difference in resolution between 35mm and 6x6. Especially when photographing nature you can get so much detail with 6x6 (for example in the foliage of far away trees) you can't really get with 35 mm. Only by using panf 50 and a good lens on 35mm I could get something closer to hp5+ 400 iso on 120 format. Second: you get a lot more grey tones with 6x6 compared to 35mm. Both this qualities are evident with a 30x30 print even to an untrained eye. Obviously I'm talking about darkroom prints, not scans.

Why not 4x5? Weight, size and cost. For general use 6x6 is unbeatable, in my opinion.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hmmm... in addition to better image quality and tonality, another reason for using MF or LF over 35mm is:

---> The Zone System <---

With 35mm, unless you're shooting the same subject in the same light, how you develop the roll is a compromise. You can't develop individual frames to suit the frame's exposure, contrast, or density; all frames are developed at once, equally. This limits how you can print it as well.

With medium format, such as Hasselblad or Mamiya, you can use interchangeable backs to suit the situation: one back for low contrast scenes, one for normal, and one for high contrast scenes. The rolls can then be developed individually in a customized manner. Those negatives will be easier to print.

Naturally, large format sheet film is the ultimate for the Zone System (or similar).

Likewise with MF and LF, having multiple backs or holders also lets you choose immediately among various film types: those with different speeds, B&W or color, or other characteristics. Unlike 35mm, you aren't limited to using the film that's been loaded into the camera.